Why people hates Line & and POD????????

[Transmogrifox]

My greatest issue with these amp modeling units is that they're just too constrictive to me.  I agree that the audience couldn't tell it's not a real valve amp, and hell, most of them don't even know what a valve amp is!

The POD and the likes can produce some very nice sounds. I was actually not at all disappointed with the V-amp's "fuzz box" sound--though I imagine it's a little easier to model a fuzz pedal than a full-on valve amp.

Something I have observed in the posts to this thread (and the same is true for me) is that it's not as much how the thing sounds, it's how it feels and responds to the guitar player.

Honestly, the only amp modelers I've gotten to toy with are the Digitech and V-amp (Behringer).  I found the V-amp to be very grainy and synthetic sounding (except for the fuzz), and the Digitech too perfect and "nice" sounding like boy pop or something

There is a responsiveness I have learned to love that comes from a real tube amp.  Even some analog stomp boxes produce this sweet "milkability" of distortion.  I think the digital modeling IS getting much better and I suspect it won't be long before it's so good that no guitar player in a blind test could tell it's not a real valve amp.

The fact still remains, though, that a tube amp is a tube amp is a tube amp.  There's some kind of a mystical mood-setting power in tube amps  that can't be replicated by a glossy gadget with blinking lights and cheap-looking buttons.

[snorky]

Very interesting discussion.  I play a Tech21 TM60 with pedals.  The other day I tried a BrownSound in front of it with a new Bartolini ZBS pickup in the bridge of a Strat, and the sounds was AMAZING.  (Yes, I know what tubes sound like.  Sold a Boogie last year.  And LOVE the THD Flexi.  That amp has the scariest distortion sound i've ever heard.)

Tech21 are really between the 2 worlds with ANALOG SS.

I think modeling technology is really interesting for the possibility of new sounds and combinations of sounds.  Using software to replicate circuits, etc.  This would be really great to play with.  Doesn't the TC Electronic G-Force do some of this (allow more flexible combinations)?  And they have their PowerCore stuff too...

- Mark

[truce11]

Thanks Puretube for the welcome - i'll try  to re-introduce myself later on.  Got back to work after posting ... sorry for the delayed thanks.

[RDV]

In the correct context they work great.

RDV

[aron]

I use the POD all the time, but for mainly commercial work. That being said, the quality of TV is very, very poor. The tone of the guitar suffers a lot, but for the time constraints I have it works well.

It doesn't feel like a tube amp at all, but once I learned to not expect it to be one, it became a very useful tool.

[MartyMart]

I've had a Pod 2.0 for a couple of years and in general, I like it for quick sketches/recording but have never used one live.
The problem when recording is, the Pod's "tones" are very difficult to separate, so if you lay down a few parts, they tend to "mush" into one "noise" much quicker than a real amp/cab would do.
No amount of "Eq" seems to solve this, perhaps the "digitalness" of the recorded parts is the problem?
For any "serious" guitar work, we always go to an amp and cab, I believe that you just can't get that "air moving, trouser flapping" speaker "spank" noise from any modeler, period .

On a positive note, since buying a Korg guitar modeler ( G10 ? its on lone for a week ! )  I have not used the pod for a few months.
That thing DOES sound great, in particular the "Vox AC 30" sim, that's quite impressive !!

Marty.

[mlabbee]

It's a tool, like anything else.  It works well for some people, not so well for others.  Remember what some people thought about distortion and fuzz boxes when they first came out?  (Someone posted an old article ranting about distortion recently - very amusing)

I use a PodXT and it makes recording very, very easy.  Plus, it allows me access to a ton of sounds that would be expensive and or a hassle to obtain using the actual units.  For example - their new FX package (they are now offering downloadable "add ons") includes a lot of fun synth-like effects.  Fun, but mostly useless. I love playing with them, but it would have cost me  several hundred bucks to pull together the gear that would let me pull it off otherwise.  

Also, it has helped me identify effects I'd like to have the real version of.  For example, I'm not a huge Fuzz Face fan and playing around with their models kind of confirmed I just don't like that sound.  On the other hand, playing their Rat model through a class a amp model really turned me on, so my next project is a Rat clone . . . etc. . . .

My final thought - they still don't sound so hot for a couple of reasons.  First, modelling is in its infancy - just going from version 2.0 to 2.01 made a pretty big difference - and they're just going to be getting better.  Second, and probably most importantly, most guitarists haven't figured out how to amplify these things properly.  Someone earlier in this thread noted that the model is supposed to sound like what a mic hears - that's pretty much true.  These things sound like crap through a regular combo unless you set it up right and understand the limitations.  The new Atomic amp is basically a flat tube power amp designed especially for the Pod - if you own a Pod or other modeller, I recommend checking it out.  It really makes the thing sound good (I'm waiting until I have $500 to blow, though). I've heard they sound PFG through those Bose things, too - but I haven't heard it myself yet (and they're like $1300!!!!!)

[petemoore]

My buddy, Greg has ordered a Peavey Classic 30, and intends that to be his first tube amp.
 He just bought a Behringer 2x 12' modeling amp, has very nice clean sound to it.
 He said "But the Tube Amp I'm getting doesn't have a DI plug" Line Out!
 I tried to explain. Line outs don't tend to sound like an amp outputsection loaded by speakers.
 I said it'll probly sound flat , dry, other non sexy terms.
 THen I said if you want a buncha cool stuff in the tip of a cable, your modeling amp is Exactly designed for that, run a LIne from it, and you'll probably get a sound you can at least work with.
 So as far as cool Tone Content, 'available at the Tip of a plug'...it's going to be hard to beat these digi jobbs. They may not Rokk like Tube Amp in my and other peoples eyes, but they sure can pack some 'interesting content' into just a LIne. That's been hard to do before Digi.
  I heard a band using Peavey XXL on one side [Metal Band and they Were >Good] and LIne 6 on the other. Two different guitars two different players. Line 6 actually passed my 'central scrutinizations', doing a fine job of the rythm crunches, but the PV sounded like a Ferrrari to my reckoning, one of those Ultra High Gain Monster Crunchers Tube Job.
 BOth players sounded great, not a fair 'lab test comparison' of amps, but when coupled with decades of amp sampling, I feel these conclusions or reviews are pretty useful or reliable...the XXL guy was doing some very intese 'circular' [Dimebag stuff], with those high rev Metal Squealingz...quite impressive.
 Anyway the Kid with the Line 6  was cutting it. Kind of surprized me...[first time I'd felt a digimodd amp was 'passable' .wasn't doing all that much except nice Rythm Crunches, sounded just fine for that.

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

mlabbee, if you are looking for a 'flat' amp so you can crank up the pod (or other digital fx) without extra coloration, then i would save the $$$ and just get a solid state PA slave amp.
I agree that modelling is just going to get better, though whether anyone is going to bother to model well enough to suit us fussbudgets (should I say FUZZBUDGETS? :lol: ) is another matter.

[mlabbee]

Paul - that's one option I'm thinking about.  

Another thought is to get a tube power amp and run it into a cab.  A bit more expensive, but it gets more to what atomic is trying to accomplish - the theory behind the Atomic is that it's a tube power amp, so while it's "flat", it tends to sound more like a "real" amp because of the compression. etc. you get from tube amplification.  I've played around with one and I must say that it is one of the better/more realistic sounds I've heard.  I suspect a big part of it is that it is tuned/voiced to work well with the pod.

I think the biggest advantage to the atomic is that it's ergonomically the best set up.  You plug the pod directly into a dock, so it become one self-contained unit, plus it retains all the in/out, so you can still run it directly into a board when you'r playing through it.

I suspect we'll see more and more of these kind of set ups in the future, including some less expensive solid state models - the convenience factor  is pretty compelling.

I think you're right that the modellers will never satisfy us tinkerers, though.  Thank goodness!  Somebody's got to be coming up with new stuff for them to model!  

[nooneknows]

I have a POD 2.0 and I only use it for recording, without the mess of a mike, loud volumes and stuff like that. But using it this way it's great, it's hard to recognize a real amp from the POD in a home recording.
IMHO it can't substitute an amp in a live situation.

[Prive]

I think that way too, if you're doing a HOME RECORDING is difficult that you have a Neumann U47 and 4 or 5 Tube heads with lots of cabs and all cranked, and if you have it this things not give you magic, you have to make it work together.
It's a tool, not a replacement, i've been looking at the Korg stuff, really impressive too.

Don't forget, i love my Marshall 100 watt!!!!!

Saludos, Marcelo.

[1wahfreak]

Well I'm a little biased at this point but I finally bought a tube amp. See the post below.
http://diystompboxes.com/sboxforum/viewtopic.php?t=20797&highlight=

I decide on the Fuchs ODS and I have to tell you the POD doesn't hold a candle to it. The sound from it is so much more refined and articulate. Actually I was really frustrated with it for about a month after I got it because it was hard to tame. It is pretty sensitive, but once I got used to playing it I can get EJ to SRV and Henderson without flipping a switch. The clean channel is incredible. The other super cool factor is that I pulled all my old effects boxes out and man, what a difference!! I thought the fuzzes were bad or the wahs were crappy, but I plug them in now and everything comes alive! I played through a POD pro for a couple of years now and it was great when I first got it. Everything was in stereo and the effects were endless but it really couldn't capture the dynamics very well. Playing through a nice set of tubes is absolute heaven.
I have to give the POD it due credit however. It's great if you don't have a place to practice or the ability to crank an amp. So I guess it depends on your situation. It also really helped decide on what I wanted in a tube amp once I was willing to make the investment. But personally I can't see ever going back to it.
So if any one is interested I have a POD pro for sale.

[Danny G]

They sound very thin live.  They're handy for recording and for bedroom jamming, but I've never been impressed with them used cranked and for live applications.

[SeanCostello]

Interesting thread. I just presented a poster last week on my initial efforts of modelling tube amplifiers to an internal conference at my company. Here's my observations:

- Computing nonlinear effects in DSP is inherently difficult, as you are dealing with something that generates harmonics, and those harmonics can fold over once they exceed Nyquist. In order to deal with this, you have a number of options, but they all involve upping the CPU useage considerably.

- Heavy distortion sounds, such as metal and fuzz boxes, are much easier to achieve than subtle distortion sounds such as a blackface Fender on the edge of power tube breakup. My model was able to achieve Big Muff and Univox Super Fuzz sounds with a great deal of accuracy (hint: use fabs() to get the Super Fuzz sound), but getting those clean sounds with grit sounded pretty, well, gritty.

- The EQ voicing is critical to the sound. This is linear, and DSPs do a great job of linear DSP. Cabinet modelling is the same thing, but I haven't got there yet.

- The model sounds kinda fake through a flat monitor system, but sounds better through a clean solid state guitar amp. As the guitar amp adds its own speaker and cabinet resonances, this makes sense.

- The distortion seems a lot like the preamp distortion in my Mesa Boogie, rather than the power amp distortion of my Fender Vibrochamp. I personally don't like the Mesa Boogie sound nowadays.

- It seems like it is not that difficult to get somewhat close, but my guess is that a truly realistic emulation will require a MUCH more detailed model than what I am now using (can't go into details, as I hope to write another paper on this in the next few months). I believe that digital should be able to do a good job of tube emulation - it just needs the right model.

- Without a speaker cabinet, it will be hard to emulate the experience of playing through a guitar amp, due to the directional effects. You don't get that nice heated tube smell from a DSP either. If you could somehow generate the smell of heating tubes, combined with a bit of mildewy basement practice space, it would probably greatly enhance the model.

- Emulating other effects, such as tape echo, flanging, phase shifting, envelope filters, etc., is relatively trivial by comparison. I even have a decent beginning to a spring reverb - something I thought was too expensive to do in digital, until I heard the Boss RV-5 that exactly duplicated the reverb of a Fender Princeton Reverb (I A/Bed through a Princeton, and could tell NO difference with the Boss).

- I am working in a visual DSP environment, where I can create small blocks in C or assembly, and arrange them as needed in a visual layout window and connect blocks together. Similar to MAX/MSP, except not as fancy at this point - but the resulting code is very efficient on the SHARC. I find that this helps a lot in modelling, as you can rearrange linear and nonlinear stages as needed.

My guess is that much of the sound of earlier modellers (and it is only a guess; I have never talked to anyone at the major modelling companies) relied on linear DSP, such as EQ, to get the sound of their models, and that the nonlinear part was relatively simple.

I am really impressed by the Korg/Vox modelling idea: Use DSP to model the preamp EQ/distortion, and use a dual triode preamp tube in conjunction with a small transformer and some other circuitry to emulate the POWER amp distortion. This is really cool stuff, and totally worthy of the patent granted to it. It makes sense, if you think about the history of Vox amps - many of the sounds heard on Beatles records (Revolver, Sgt. Pepper) were recorded with Vox amps that had solid state preamps and tube power amps.

Just my $0.02.

Sean Costello

[filterazonatie]

As an analog junky, I have to admit that the modelling thing is really starting to gain ground. I agree that there's no comparing a POD or the like with having a great tube amp cranked up, BUT I personally don't get to crank up my amp all that often. Giggin in NYC, I'm splitting hairs between volume on on or 1 1/2 most of the time, and that's with a little 18 Watter! (Granted, it's a LOUD 18 watt amp, but just the same...) And under those conditions, is my super cool "Pure all analog all tube" rig doing what it's supposed to do? Nope.

Enter the VOX tonelab. I took it to two gigs, and plugged it straight into the main board. A few balance and eq issues got solved at the first gig, and at the second, that thing killed. Great show, great sounds.

Also, my wife and I just had a baby, and turning up an amp to record at home is just not an option for the time being. Again, modeling is a life-saver. I can record everything direct with headphones. And since I tend to double a lot of rhythm guitar parts, the sounds is actually quite realistic!

Bottom line, I think in certain circumstances, the modeling thing has its place, and I have changed my thinking to include this as another useful tool.

Ofcourse, my MAIN rig is still all tube and all analog! But that's just for bragging rights and self-satisfaction!  :wink:

[Prive]

Sorry, i buy a Korg AX10G and i'm happy, i haven't forgiveness??

Hehehehehe!!!!!!



Saludos y feliz Navidad!!!!!!!!!!  Marcelo.

[brett]

When I was 10 years old everyone was arguing whether British motorcycles or Jap motorcycles were best....

This seems a similar argument?

PS M/cycle answer turned out to be Japanese were successful above all others (ok, a few Hogs, Ducatis, etc. survived, but Nortons etc are quite rare)  Why?  Jap bikes were better designed -they met the needs of the average user *much* better (didn't leak oil, lighter, more powerful, etc.).

[Pierre]

...HI !
Im really thinking on buying a POD 2.0, i have no exp with amps modelers, but i guess at that price (150 euros) im going to give it a try...
XT 's stills out off my budget...
Opinions on the 2.0 would be very usefull...

[ildar]

My two cents on the modelling vs. analog debate:
I've owned a few of the desktop modellers, including the J Station, Genesis 3 and V Amp. I used the Genesis 3 and J Station live through tube power amps with reasonable results. I rehearsed with a bandmate's Line 6 Flextone II, hated it, but bought one anyway to give it a chance and to program it my way. Sold it within a week of purchase. My setup now consists partially of a tube preamp through a GT-6 to a Mesa Boogie power amp. So far, it's been the best setup for me. Sandwiching the digital unit between two tube units gives me the best of both worlds and outstanding flexibility. How many digi-sciples would turn up their noses at a solid state rig? Digital, to me, is actually a step below transistor, and all digital processing robs the signal of warmth and strength, there's no doubt.
Okay, I guess that's more than two cents' worth.